Accused in a murder case arising from a land dispute sought bail after their earlier bail was cancelled; they had allegedly killed the injured witness of a prior case against them. The court held long incarceration was no ground in such a heinous crime and dismissed the bail petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Reserved on : 19.06.2025
Pronounced on : 09.07.2025
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7336 of 2025
1.M.Gopalakrishnan S/o.Meenatchikone
2.M.Karmegam S/o.Meenatchikone
3.R.Ajithbalan S/o.Ramu
...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.202 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to release the petitioners on bail relating to the case in S.C.No.107 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai in Crime No.202 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.
1/11
For Petitioners : Mr.Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Intervenor : Mr.KR.Bharathi Kannan
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
O R D E R
The petitioners seek bail in connection with the case in S.C.No.107 of 2025 on
the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai relating to Crime No.202 of 2022 of respondent police.
2. The brief case of the prosecution:-
The deceased Suresh purchased land measuring 3.5 acres at Sambiranipatti Village, Melur Taluk and cultivated coconut trees. The adjacent lands are also owned to the deceased Suresh's friend Lakshmanan and to the 1st petitioner Gopalakrishnan. There was a civil dispute between the 1st petitioner and said Lakshmanan. The said Lakshmanan filed the civil suit and obtained decree and based on the decree, he put boundary stone after measurement. On 24.02.2020, the deceased Suresh and his father Dharmarajan were putting boundary stones on their land. Lakshmanan was also present there. At that time, the petitioners, along with other accused, came there, assaulted and caused injuries to the deceased Suresh
2/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
and his father Dharamarajan by deadly weapons and scolded Lakshmanan using caste name. So, Lakshmanan gave a complaint before the Melavalavu police station and the same was registered in Crime No.39 of 2020 U/s.147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 379 of IPC and U/s.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, against the petitioners and other accused. The petitioners and other accused were granted bail and came out. Now, the case is pending as Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 before the III Additional District Court (PCR), Madurai. In that case, the deceased Suresh and his father Dharmarajan are ocular witnesses.
2.1. While being so, 08.12.2022 at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased Suresh went to
farm in Sambiranipatti by car and parked his car near Sambiranipatti Mandhai. On watching this, the petitioners and other accused made quarrel with him and assaulted him with aruval, wooden log and caused death. The wife of the deceased lodged a complaint before the Melavalavu police station, and another case in Crime No.202 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners and other accused U/s.147, 148, 341, 302 and 506 (2) IPC. In this case, the petitioners also obtained bail from the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2023 on 24.04.2023. However, the defacto complainant Jeya Gowsalya, wife of the deceased, moved Crl.O.P(MD) No.16237 of 2023 for cancellation of bail and the same was allowed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
on 06.09.2024 by this Court, hence, the bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled.
4/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
Subsequently, the same was cancelled by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.16237 of 2023, dated 06.09.2024. The petitioners moved Crl.A.(MD)Nos.359, 346, 360 and 326 of 2025 before this Court, in which the petitioners were granted bail in the case relating to Crime No.39 of 2020 on 09.04.2025 and directed for disposal of both cases by joint trial. The petitioners filed the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.784, 785 and 786 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.140 of 2025 before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and the same were dismissed on 04.03.2025 and 15.05.2025, respectively. The petitioners are in judicial custody for more than 860 days. Since both cases were taken on cognizance on filing charge sheet, there is no question of tampering evidence. The deceased Suresh who was injured in the previous case was alleged to have been murdered by somebody, the petitioners were roped as accused because of previous case. The petitioners have not committed the offence. As there are number of accused in both cases and they have engaged different advocates considering their overtacts, the trial of the cases would take more time. The petitioners are ready to cooperate with the trial and also to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and they are also ready to stay far away. Therefore, the petitioners may be granted bail.
respondent police strongly objected the bail petition and submitted that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
occurrences took place upon land dispute. The petitioners were granted bail in previous case in Crime No.39 of 2020 specifically not to tamper with or threaten the witnesses. But, violating the conditions, the petitioners murdered the ocular witness, namely the deceased Suresh, who was injured in previous case. The Investigating Officer properly investigated the case and laid a charge sheet in this case. The petitioners are having number of previous cases. The petitioners' contention that they are not involved in this case will be decided by the trial Court on completion of trial. The petitioners have no valid reason for bail. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
6/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
petitioners are not entitled to bail.
and events and the respondent's side also filed list of previous cases registered against the petitioners. This Court has already dealt with the facts and circumstances of the cases in various kinds of petitions filed by the petitioners/accused as well as by the defacto complainants in both cases. So, there is no need to discuss elaborately once again the same facts.
and murdered the deceased Suresh (injured/witness in Crime No.39 of 2020) was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
said to have murdered by the petitioners along with co-accused on 18.12.2022, nearly after two years of coming out of bail which showed the petitioners' character and attitude and strong enmity and hatred maintained by them two years long. However, they are again granted bail in preferring Crl.A.(MD)Nos.359, 346 and 360 and 326 of 2025 before this Court by its order passed on 09.04.2025 in the case related to Crime No.39 of 2020.
8/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
consider the seriousness of the crime and the potential risk of granting bail in case of brutal murder.
9/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
cases are directed to be tried jointly. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The petition has no merit and the same deserves dismissal.
the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
sd/09/07/2025
/ TRUE COPY /
/07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
VSD
To
10/11
Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025
+1 CC to M/s.DR.R.ALAGUMANI, Advocate ( SR-7337[I] dated 09/07/2025 )
ORDER IN Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7336 of 2025 Date :09/07/2025
PR/31.07 .2025 11P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023
11/11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, accused of murdering an ocular witness in an earlier case after release on bail and whose earlier bail was cancelled, should be released on regular bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2022 (3) MWN (Cr.)145 (SC)Relied on¶9
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr.Relied on¶10
(2004) 7 SCC 528 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its DirectorRelied on¶10
2007 ALL SCR 753 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Gopalakrishnan
M. Karmegam
R. Ajithbalan
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station, Madurai District
P. Vadamalai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
